I wonder how you would interpret the phrase "a Brechtian trick" in thefollowing writing? I apologize for the fact that you may have to reada bit of the piece that follows to answer that question, but it is arather interesting piece (to me, at least), and I hope it might be aworthwhile collection of thoughts.

Of course, I assume that "Brechtian" refers to Bertol Brecht, but thisalone does not clarify the meaning.

(Also, if anyone cares to comment on the subject of the article, Iwould certainly be glad to hear your thoughts....)

Film critic Roger Ebert has long been a critic of 3D films -- heclaims that they are nearly always too dark, and that the 3D effectsthey produce really don't add much of anything to the films in whichthey are used.

A movie-insider recently wrote to Mr. Ebert to agree that 3D effectsin film are not very satisfying -- but he maintains that the problemisn't with the technology, it is with human evolution: the brain hasevolved in such a way that 3D effects will NEVER be satisfying tohuman beings.

He makes a very interesting case here. It's a bit technical, but Ithink you'll find it interesting....

"Why 3D doesn't work and never will. Case closed." by Roger Ebert:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html

=== begin quoted text ===

I received a letter that ends, as far as I am concerned, thediscussion about 3D. It doesn't work with our brains and it neverwill.

The notion that we are asked to pay a premium to witness an inferiorand inherently brain-confusing image is outrageous. The case isclosed.

This letter is from Walter Murch, seen at left [photo at link above],the most respected film editor and sound designer in the moderncinema. As a editor, he must be intimately expert with how an imageinteracts with the audience's eyes. He won an Academy Award in 1979for his work on "Apocalypse Now," whose sound was a crucial aspect ofits effect....

[From Walter Murch's letter to Mr. Ebert]:

Hello Roger,

I read your review of "Green Hornet" and though I haven't seen thefilm, I agree with your comments about 3D.

The 3D image is dark, as you mentioned (about a camera stop darker)and small. Somehow the glasses "gather in" the image -- even on a hugeImax screen -- and make it seem half the scope of the same image whenlooked at without the glasses.

I edited one 3D film back in the 1980's -- "Captain Eo" -- and alsonoticed that horizontal movement will strobe much sooner in 3D than itdoes in 2D. This was true then, and it is still true now. It hassomething to do with the amount of brain power dedicated to studyingthe edges of things. The more conscious we are of edges, the earlierstrobing kicks in.

The biggest problem with 3D, though, is the "convergence/focus" issue.A couple of the other issues -- darkness and "smallness" -- are atleast theoretically solvable. But the deeper problem is that theaudience must focus their eyes at the plane of the screen -- say it is80 feet away. This is constant no matter what.

But their eyes must converge at perhaps 10 feet away, then 60 feet,then 120 feet, and so on, depending on what the illusion is. So 3Dfilms require us to focus at one distance and converge at another. And600 million years of evolution has never presented this problembefore. All living things with eyes have always focussed [sic] andconverged at the same point.

If we look at the salt shaker on the table, close to us, we focus atsix feet and our eyeballs converge (tilt in) at six feet. Imagine thebase of a triangle between your eyes and the apex of the triangleresting on the thing you are looking at. But then look out the windowand you focus at sixty feet and converge also at sixty feet. Thatimaginary triangle has now "opened up" so that your lines of sight arealmost -- almost -- parallel to each other.

We can do this. 3D films would not work if we couldn't. But it is liketapping your head and rubbing your stomach at the same time,difficult. So the "CPU" of our perceptual brain has to work extrahard, which is why after 20 minutes or so many people get headaches.They are doing something that 600 million years of evolution neverprepared them for. This is a deep problem, which no amount oftechnical tweaking can fix. Nothing will fix it short of producingtrue "holographic" images.

Consequently, the editing of 3D films cannot be as rapid as for 2Dfilms, because of this shifting of convergence: it takes a number ofmilliseconds for the brain/eye to "get" what the space of each shot isand adjust.

And lastly, the question of immersion. 3D films remind the audiencethat they are in a certain "perspective" relationship to the image. Itis almost a Brechtian trick. Whereas if the film story has reallygripped an audience they are "in" the picture in a kind of dreamlike"spaceless" space. So a good story will give you more dimensionalitythan you can ever cope with.

So: dark, small, stroby, headache inducing, alienating. And expensive.The question is: how long will it take people to realize and get fedup?

All best wishes,

Walter Murch

=== end quoted text ===

Roger Ebert's blog:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/

To me, the most interesting thing that Mr. Murch says isthis:

=== begin quoted text ===

3D films remind the audience that they are in a certain "perspective"relationship to the image. It is almost a Brechtian trick. Whereas ifthe film story has really gripped an audience they are "in" thepicture in a kind of dreamlike "spaceless" space. So a good story willgive you more dimensionality than you can ever cope with....

=== end quoted text ===

Now, one might read his piece as a proclamation of the limitations ofthe human brain -- but I see it as quite the opposite: it is a*celebration* of the human brain! The reason we are often"underwhelmed" by the tricks and techniques of 3D films is that ourown brains are so magnificently capable of generating what Mr. Murchcalls " 'spaceless' space" -- and that gift of the mind/imagination isso compelling that something like 3D even at its best just doesn't addmuch to it. (It can even distract from it.) Perhaps this is why"stereo photography" -- such a big craze in the early days ofphotography -- is largely regarded as a quaint antique (fascinating asit can be: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereo_photography )

--Brett (in Berkeley, California, USA)http://www.ForeverFunds.org/My plan for erasing poverty from the world with micro-endowments that"give" forever into the future

Post by Berkeley BrettI hope you are all in good spirits.I wonder how you would interpret the phrase "a Brechtian trick" in thefollowing writing? I apologize for the fact that you may have to reada bit of the piece that follows to answer that question, but it is arather interesting piece (to me, at least), and I hope it might be aworthwhile collection of thoughts.

No need to read the entire message, the penultimate pargraph willsuffice for those who are familiar with Brecht theater and stagedirections, Mother Courage etc. I am not, but I am curious about theanswer and I want to make it easier for a Brecht expert, or fasn, toanswer the question.

Post by Berkeley Brett=== begin quoted text ===3D films remind the audience that they are in a certain "perspective"relationship to the image. It is almost a Brechtian trick. Whereas ifthe film story has really gripped an audience they are "in" thepicture in a kind of dreamlike "spaceless" space. So a good story willgive you more dimensionality than you can ever cope with....=== end quoted text ===

Post by Berkeley BrettI hope you are all in good spirits.I wonder how you would interpret the phrase "a Brechtian trick" in thefollowing writing? I apologize for the fact that you may have to reada bit of the piece that follows to answer that question, but it is arather interesting piece (to me, at least), and I hope it might be aworthwhile collection of thoughts.

No need to read the entire message, the penultimate pargraph willsuffice for those who are familiar with Brecht theater and stagedirections, Mother Courage etc. I am not, but I am curious about theanswer and I want to make it easier for a Brecht expert, or fasn, toanswer the question.

Post by Berkeley Brett=== begin quoted text ===3D films remind the audience that they are in a certain "perspective"relationship to the image. It is almost a Brechtian trick. Whereas ifthe film story has really gripped an audience they are "in" the picturein a kind of dreamlike "spaceless" space. So a good story will give youmore dimensionality than you can ever cope with....=== end quoted text ===

Brecht deliberately did things in his plays that would cause the audienceto remember that they were in fact sitting in a theater watching apresentation, not observers of natural action. In other word, perhaps,he sought to undermine their "willing suspension of disbelief" thatprevious playwrights counted on exploiting, and thereby to provoke themto think instead of relaxing and just enjoying the show as entertainment.

It's known as an effect of alienation or distancing (Ger:Verfremdungseffekt); here's a possibly better explantion than mine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distancing_effect

What Walter Murch meant in what he wrote to Ebert is that because of theway the human vision system works, 3D projected onto a screen in a largeroom never lets the viewer forget that they are watching a movie;ordinary 2D movies can therefore create a more "immersive" experience, ofthe sort Hollywood, unlike Brecht, likes to supply.

By "almost a Brechtian trick" he means that 3D projection necessarilyproduces something almost like the Brechtian _Verfremdung_. Brecht didit, quite deliberately, by frequently breaking the fourth wall and othertheatrical techniques; 3D does it, without meaning to, by sending oursense of vision contradictory cues.

--Roland Hutchinson

He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba,"... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy.--Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ )

Post by Roland HutchinsonWhat Walter Murch meant in what he wrote to Ebert is that because of theway the human vision system works, 3D projected onto a screen in a largeroom never lets the viewer forget that they are watching a movie;

Well, the last 3D movie I saw never let you forget you were watching amovie because the filmmakers didn't give a damn about the geometricimplications of the camera separation.

If you show the earth from space and it looks like a ball, or you showa plane from a few thousand feet above and it looks like a model, itmeans they simply decided to place the viewers eyes a long long wayapart which is totally and predictably unrealistic.

This has nothing to do with inherent limitations of 3D; it's simply aproduct of incompetence.

Post by Roland HutchinsonWhat Walter Murch meant in what he wrote to Ebert is that because ofthe way the human vision system works, 3D projected onto a screen in alarge room never lets the viewer forget that they are watching a movie;

Well, the last 3D movie I saw never let you forget you were watching amovie because the filmmakers didn't give a damn about the geometricimplications of the camera separation.If you show the earth from space and it looks like a ball, or you show aplane from a few thousand feet above and it looks like a model, it meansthey simply decided to place the viewers eyes a long long way apartwhich is totally and predictably unrealistic.This has nothing to do with inherent limitations of 3D; it's simply aproduct of incompetence.

Yes, but he argues that even eliminating the incompetence, it would stillfeel unnatural, because the focusing distance (to the screen) and theconvergence distance (suggested by the stereo images) conflict. Ourbrain knows something is fishy, even if we don't. This is not a noveltheory; it is a common criticism of 3D motion pictures.

--Roland Hutchinson

He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba,"... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy.--Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ )

Post by Roland HutchinsonWhat Walter Murch meant in what he wrote to Ebert is that because ofthe way the human vision system works, 3D projected onto a screen in alarge room never lets the viewer forget that they are watching a movie;

Well, the last 3D movie I saw never let you forget you were watching amovie because the filmmakers didn't give a damn about the geometricimplications of the camera separation.If you show the earth from space and it looks like a ball, or you show aplane from a few thousand feet above and it looks like a model, it meansthey simply decided to place the viewers eyes a long long way apartwhich is totally and predictably unrealistic.This has nothing to do with inherent limitations of 3D; it's simply aproduct of incompetence.

Yes, but he argues that even eliminating the incompetence, it would stillfeel unnatural, because the focusing distance (to the screen) and theconvergence distance (suggested by the stereo images) conflict. Ourbrain knows something is fishy, even if we don't. This is not a noveltheory; it is a common criticism of 3D motion pictures.

While it is true, it also seems to be true that given enough practiceyour brain has no trouble getting used to this. I notice that if Ihaven't seen a 3D movie in a few months, the effect is oftendistracting. I've I'm on my third one that month, I don't notice it atall.

(by it, I mean the conflicting depth effect, not the 3D)

--Ten Minutes ago you beat a man senseless. He was senseless before Ibeat him.

Post by Roland HutchinsonWhat Walter Murch meant in what he wrote to Ebert is that because ofthe way the human vision system works, 3D projected onto a screen in alarge room never lets the viewer forget that they are watching a movie;

Well, the last 3D movie I saw never let you forget you were watching amovie because the filmmakers didn't give a damn about the geometricimplications of the camera separation.If you show the earth from space and it looks like a ball, or you show aplane from a few thousand feet above and it looks like a model, it meansthey simply decided to place the viewers eyes a long long way apartwhich is totally and predictably unrealistic.This has nothing to do with inherent limitations of 3D; it's simply aproduct of incompetence.

Yes, but he argues that even eliminating the incompetence, it would stillfeel unnatural, because the focusing distance (to the screen) and theconvergence distance (suggested by the stereo images) conflict. Ourbrain knows something is fishy, even if we don't. This is not a noveltheory; it is a common criticism of 3D motion pictures.

While it is true, it also seems to be true that given enough practiceyour brain has no trouble getting used to this. I notice that if Ihaven't seen a 3D movie in a few months, the effect is oftendistracting. I've I'm on my third one that month, I don't notice it atall.(by it, I mean the conflicting depth effect, not the 3D)

What a nicely timed response! I was just thinking of asking a questionabout that.

It makes sense that we should be able to adapt (whether we want to, ornot, being quite a different matter). After all, experiments back inthe '60s showed people able to adapt to goggles that divided thevisual field prismatically. That's very impressive, and, I'd havethought, much more difficult than adapting to a 3D film in a cinema.

Post by LewisWhile it is true, it also seems to be true that given enough practiceyour brain has no trouble getting used to this. I notice that if Ihaven't seen a 3D movie in a few months, the effect is oftendistracting. I've I'm on my third one that month, I don't notice it atall.(by it, I mean the conflicting depth effect, not the 3D)

What a nicely timed response! I was just thinking of asking a questionabout that.It makes sense that we should be able to adapt (whether we want to, ornot, being quite a different matter). After all, experiments back inthe '60s showed people able to adapt to goggles that divided thevisual field prismatically. That's very impressive, and, I'd havethought, much more difficult than adapting to a 3D film in a cinema.

I saw a 3D film the other day, "The voyage of the Dawn Treader". I was alittle surprised that the glasses were optional. Last time I saw a 3D film wasback in the 1950s, which was the previous time they had come into fashion, tobe superseded by Cinemascope (tm). The film I saw back then was "Hondo", butwhen it hit the drive-in circuit they showed only one of the prints.

But with "The voyage of the Dawn Treader" I lost awareness of the 3D effectafter about 10 minutes. The problem is not the effect of 3D on the audience,but rather the effect on the director, who changed the story to provide himwith the opportunity to play with his toys - in that case a lungingsea-serpent.

It was like those amateur web pages where people have every line of text in adifferent colour and font, and every third line flashing.

The story of the film disappears, because what comes across is the directorsaying "Look at me! Aren't I clever?"

--Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South AfricaWeb: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htmBlog: http://methodius.blogspot.comE-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

Post by LewisWhile it is true, it also seems to be true that given enough practiceyour brain has no trouble getting used to this. I notice that if Ihaven't seen a 3D movie in a few months, the effect is oftendistracting. I've I'm on my third one that month, I don't notice it atall.(by it, I mean the conflicting depth effect, not the 3D)

What a nicely timed response! I was just thinking of asking a questionabout that.It makes sense that we should be able to adapt (whether we want to, ornot, being quite a different matter). After all, experiments back inthe '60s showed people able to adapt to goggles that divided thevisual field prismatically. That's very impressive, and, I'd havethought, much more difficult than adapting to a 3D film in a cinema.

I saw a 3D film the other day, "The voyage of the Dawn Treader". I was alittle surprised that the glasses were optional. Last time I saw a 3D film wasback in the 1950s, which was the previous time they had come into fashion, tobe superseded by Cinemascope (tm). The film I saw back then was "Hondo", butwhen it hit the drive-in circuit they showed only one of the prints.But with "The voyage of the Dawn Treader" I lost awareness of the 3D effectafter about 10 minutes. The problem is not the effect of 3D on the audience,but rather the effect on the director, who changed the story to provide himwith the opportunity to play with his toys - in that case a lungingsea-serpent.

I agree completely. 'The voyage of the Dawn Treader' is the firstreally excellent 3D film that I've watched, where the film was so goodthat the 3D ceased to intrude, as you say. The sea-monster was quitebrilliant.

I quite enjoyed a 3D version of 'Shrek' (not the latest, nasty,production) - but there it was rather because the 3D was one of thejokes, with the director drawing attention to it for comic effect.

Post by Peter BrooksI agree completely. 'The voyage of the Dawn Treader' is the firstreally excellent 3D film that I've watched, where the film was so goodthat the 3D ceased to intrude, as you say. The sea-monster was quitebrilliant.

The only 3D movie I've seen is "The Creature From The Black Lagoon".I was 16 at the time. Been there, done that.

Post by LewisWhile it is true, it also seems to be true that given enoughpractice your brain has no trouble getting used to this. I noticethat if I haven't seen a 3D movie in a few months, the effect isoften distracting. I've I'm on my third one that month, I don'tnotice it at all.(by it, I mean the conflicting depth effect, not the 3D)

What a nicely timed response! I was just thinking of asking aquestion about that.It makes sense that we should be able to adapt (whether we want to,or not, being quite a different matter). After all, experiments backin the '60s showed people able to adapt to goggles that divided thevisual field prismatically. That's very impressive, and, I'd havethought, much more difficult than adapting to a 3D film in a cinema.

I saw a 3D film the other day, "The voyage of the Dawn Treader". Iwas a little surprised that the glasses were optional. Last time Isaw a 3D film was back in the 1950s, which was the previous time theyhad come into fashion, to be superseded by Cinemascope (tm). The filmI saw back then was "Hondo", but when it hit the drive-in circuitthey showed only one of the prints.But with "The voyage of the Dawn Treader" I lost awareness of the 3Deffect after about 10 minutes. The problem is not the effect of 3D onthe audience, but rather the effect on the director, who changed thestory to provide him with the opportunity to play with his toys - inthat case a lunging sea-serpent.It was like those amateur web pages where people have every line oftext in a different colour and font, and every third line flashing.The story of the film disappears, because what comes across is thedirector saying "Look at me! Aren't I clever?"

Uh huh. I saw Toy Story III recently and could see no point in the 3D.BTW - what do glasses wearers do? Would you recommend wearing the 3D specson top of the regulars or the regulars on top of the 3D? Is there anetiquette?

Post by LewisWhile it is true, it also seems to be true that given enoughpractice your brain has no trouble getting used to this. I noticethat if I haven't seen a 3D movie in a few months, the effect isoften distracting. I've I'm on my third one that month, I don'tnotice it at all.(by it, I mean the conflicting depth effect, not the 3D)

What a nicely timed response! I was just thinking of asking aquestion about that.It makes sense that we should be able to adapt (whether we want to,or not, being quite a different matter). After all, experiments backin the '60s showed people able to adapt to goggles that divided thevisual field prismatically. That's very impressive, and, I'd havethought, much more difficult than adapting to a 3D film in a cinema.

I saw a 3D film the other day, "The voyage of the Dawn Treader". Iwas a little surprised that the glasses were optional. Last time Isaw a 3D film was back in the 1950s, which was the previous time theyhad come into fashion, to be superseded by Cinemascope (tm). The filmI saw back then was "Hondo", but when it hit the drive-in circuitthey showed only one of the prints.But with "The voyage of the Dawn Treader" I lost awareness of the 3Deffect after about 10 minutes. The problem is not the effect of 3D onthe audience, but rather the effect on the director, who changed thestory to provide him with the opportunity to play with his toys - inthat case a lunging sea-serpent.It was like those amateur web pages where people have every line oftext in a different colour and font, and every third line flashing.The story of the film disappears, because what comes across is thedirector saying "Look at me! Aren't I clever?"

Uh huh. I saw Toy Story III recently and could see no point in the 3D.BTW - what do glasses wearers do? Would you recommend wearing the 3D specson top of the regulars or the regulars on top of the 3D? Is there anetiquette?

I can never decide. I usually end up with eyeballs, glasses, 3D glasses.Sometimes I just take my glasses off, though that rarely lasts.

I disagree about Toy Story 3, by the way. I think it is one of thebest examples of how to properly use 3D in a film (Avatar is the otherone).

With Toy Story 3 (and the 3D remasters of Toy Story 1 and 2), the 3D isused to add DEPTH to the film where most films use 3D to have thingspointing out at the audience in a sort of "look ma, look what I can do!"effect. This tends to make you feel as if you are watching somethingthat is really happening, but since the film is animated, there's stilla plane with you one one side and the animation on the other. I thinkthis works, and the animated 'pointy' 3D movies just feel like every timethere's something pointy its to push you out.

I quite enjoyed the 3D aspect of the Toy Story movies.

Avatar was something else entirely on the surface, but it used 3D forthe same purpose, to pull you into the screen and make you feel like youwere seeing something that was really happening. It added depth andheight to the image, but the effect was carried through-out the filmwhere in most others, there is a definite feeling that, "Oh, here'sanother 3D bit." With Avatar, every single second of film is 'a 3D bit'and so you forget about it, but are still subject to the effect.

--#27794 <Vellius> ... I wonder if the really nerdy Klingons learn how tospeak english

Post by LewisWhile it is true, it also seems to be true that given enoughpractice your brain has no trouble getting used to this. I noticethat if I haven't seen a 3D movie in a few months, the effect isoften distracting. I've I'm on my third one that month, I don'tnotice it at all.(by it, I mean the conflicting depth effect, not the 3D)

What a nicely timed response! I was just thinking of asking aquestion about that.It makes sense that we should be able to adapt (whether we want to,or not, being quite a different matter). After all, experiments backin the '60s showed people able to adapt to goggles that divided thevisual field prismatically. That's very impressive, and, I'd havethought, much more difficult than adapting to a 3D film in a cinema.

I saw a 3D film the other day, "The voyage of the Dawn Treader". Iwas a little surprised that the glasses were optional. Last time Isaw a 3D film was back in the 1950s, which was the previous time theyhad come into fashion, to be superseded by Cinemascope (tm). The filmI saw back then was "Hondo", but when it hit the drive-in circuitthey showed only one of the prints.But with "The voyage of the Dawn Treader" I lost awareness of the 3Deffect after about 10 minutes. The problem is not the effect of 3D onthe audience, but rather the effect on the director, who changed thestory to provide him with the opportunity to play with his toys - inthat case a lunging sea-serpent.It was like those amateur web pages where people have every line oftext in a different colour and font, and every third line flashing.The story of the film disappears, because what comes across is thedirector saying "Look at me! Aren't I clever?"

Uh huh. I saw Toy Story III recently and could see no point in the 3D.BTW - what do glasses wearers do? Would you recommend wearing the 3D specson top of the regulars or the regulars on top of the 3D? Is there anetiquette?

I can never decide. I usually end up with eyeballs, glasses, 3D glasses.Sometimes I just take my glasses off, though that rarely lasts.I disagree about Toy Story 3, by the way. I think it is one of thebest examples of how to properly use 3D in a film (Avatar is the otherone).With Toy Story 3 (and the 3D remasters of Toy Story 1 and 2), the 3D isused to add DEPTH to the film where most films use 3D to have thingspointing out at the audience in a sort of "look ma, look what I can do!"effect. This tends to make you feel as if you are watching somethingthat is really happening, but since the film is animated, there's stilla plane with you one one side and the animation on the other. I thinkthis works, and the animated 'pointy' 3D movies just feel like every timethere's something pointy its to push you out.I quite enjoyed the 3D aspect of the Toy Story movies.Avatar was something else entirely on the surface, but it used 3D forthe same purpose, to pull you into the screen and make you feel like youwere seeing something that was really happening. It added depth andheight to the image, but the effect was carried through-out the filmwhere in most others, there is a definite feeling that, "Oh, here'sanother 3D bit." With Avatar, every single second of film is 'a 3D bit'and so you forget about it, but are still subject to the effect.

Avatar was presented well, as you say, but I think that, as a non-intrusive 3D film "Dawn Treader" was better.

In Avatar the flying islands and flying sequences don't gel as well.The creatures aren't as good either. Excellent film, though,certainly, whatever it was trying to say.

Post by John DeanUh huh. I saw Toy Story III recently and could see no point in the3D. BTW - what do glasses wearers do? Would you recommend wearingthe 3D specs on top of the regulars or the regulars on top of the3D? Is there an etiquette?

3D on top of regular. The other way wouldn't sit right, and thetemples on the 3D glasses are wider (probably specifically for thatreason).

--Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------Still with HP Labs |People think it must be fun to be aSF Bay Area (1982-) |super genius, but they don'tChicago (1964-1982) |realize how hard it is to put up|with all the idiots in the world.***@gmail.com | Calvin

Post by John DeanUh huh. I saw Toy Story III recently and could see no point in the3D. BTW - what do glasses wearers do? Would you recommend wearingthe 3D specs on top of the regulars or the regulars on top of the3D? Is there an etiquette?

3D on top of regular. The other way wouldn't sit right, and thetemples on the 3D glasses are wider (probably specifically for thatreason).

Besides, if I wore 3-D glasses without my real glasses, I wouldn't beable to see much on the screen.

The first time (this time around) that I went to a 3-D show, Iperiodically tried it with and without the 3-D glasses. Sometimes therewasn't much difference; maybe a bit more blur without them. Other times,there was.

I gather from what I've read that there are different ways to make a 3-Dmovie, and people argue passionately about which ones work best, but Idon't know enough about the subject myself to have an opinion.